Jury: Lisa Montgomery should be executed

Kansas City Star ^ | 10/26/07 | John Shultz

[Huntress]

Jurors unanimously agreed today that Lisa Montgomery be put to death for killing Bobbie Jo Stinnett and stealing her unborn daughter nearly three years ago.

The federal jury deliberated about five hours. If jurors had not reached a unanimous decision in favor of the death penalty, Montgomery would have received life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Before the decision was announced, the judge ordered spectators to control their emotions or leave the courtroom.

[r9etb]

Every time a violent criminal is put to death, it saves the lives of 18 people on average.

Either you're using invalid statistics, or you're advocating capital punishment for "violent crimes" in general. Either way, your conclusions aren't logically supportable.

The legitimate statistic would be based, not on "violent crimes," which is a very broad definition, but rather on the number of people who were incarcerated for murder, released, and then went on to kill again.

Note, BTW, that killing violent criminals is not the only way to prevent them from committing murder out in the free world. Life-long incarceration fulfills the same purpose. You might argue against that for reasons such as cost, but that's not a particularly compelling reason to decide on whether or not a criminal should live or die.

Twigs: this is the sort of thing I was talking about when I talked about what it does to us.

[MrB]

It actually costs less to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives than to execute them, but with some reform, say,

2 appeals maximum, maximum 1 yr from the failure of the 2nd appeal for the execution,

we could get the costs down.

[Huntress]

Let us know how “mixed” your feelings would be if this happened to, say, your daughter and grandchild.

I pray that I never find out. However, I hope that I would be rational and objective enough after such an event to make my decision based on the relevant facts, laws, and moral values, rather than on my emotions.

[Fishtalk]

My Blog is positively the definitive site for this crime. I first start blogging when this crime happened and for some reason all the people involved with Montgomery, including her ex-husband and kids, began posting on my Blog.

Her ex-husband wanted me to write the book on the case. I thought about it but hey, they live in Kansas.

Lisa's daughters are great kids, and they regularly send me invites to their myspace pages and updates on their lives.

This death penalty gives me pause because of my relationship with her daughters. But if ever a crime deserved the death penalty it's this one. Her daughters were so worried about their mother getting the death penalty.

Below is a link to my most recent true crime post...at the very end is a list of all the Blog posts I'd main regarding this crime. My Blog is getting big hits and has been all week...today it's about to burn out.

HERE

 

[r9etb]

I hope that I would be rational and objective enough after such an event to make my decision based on the relevant facts, laws, and moral values, rather than on my emotions.

If it were me I would, of course, want the perp dead in a painful and gruesome manner. That's only natural.

The question, however, is not what you or I want, but whether it would be right to actually carry out such an act -- either by doing it ourselves, or by delegating the responsibility to somebody else.

The whole point of the rule of law is that it (properly) bases justice on an impartial basis, based on moral principles arrived at in calm reflection; as opposed to the sorts of extreme punishments that come from letting emotional responses rule our actions.

[MonicaG]

Good post, thanks. The 80% makes me angry - obviously the repeat offenders correctly assess the costs (to themselves) do not outweigh the so-called benefits of indulging in their crimes.

[juliej]

Montomery was walking around with the baby and her husband was clueless about what had happened?????

[geezerwheezer]

This was a federal trial, so don’t worry about a governor commuting the sentence. Only a Presidential pardon will spare her now.

[Beckwith]

Man, Hillary had those thighs going for her when she was a kid!

[fish hawk]

IF it happened to you, trust me, you would go with your emotions. Anyone would. Even if you didn’t say or do anything overt, you would have it in your mind. Unless you are super human.

[Huntress]

The question, however, is not what you or I want, but whether it would be right to actually carry out such an act -- either by doing it ourselves, or by delegating the responsibility to somebody else.

The whole point of the rule of law is that it (properly) bases justice on an impartial basis, based on moral principles arrived at in calm reflection; as opposed to the sorts of extreme punishments that come from letting emotional responses rule our actions.

You are quite right. Unfortunately, emotion seems to rule more and more in our society, and those of us who would take a more dispassionate view of things are derided as callous and lacking in compassion.

[Eagles Talon IV]

I wasn’t thinking of appeals but one is enough in any case.

In the case of a conviction by DNA, execution should be within 24 hours. If there must be an appeal it must be filed and executed within 30 days and if it isn’t, tough sh*t, the perp burns.

[Huntress]

Perhaps I would. But how I feel about it wouldn’t affect whether the death penalty is morally and legally right.

See post 45. r9etb said it better than I could.

[Kozak]

EEEK!

What a miserable, evil looking thing. Her soul really “shines” through.

Yeah, and Lisa Montgomery is no prize either....

[montag813]

My conscience is torn about the death penalty, too.

"Thou shalt not murder". Thus saith the Lord.

[Crucis Country]

The woman studied how to do a C-Section. They found all the info on her computer where she’d been planning on cutting the baby out for months.

It was a long, planned, premeditated murder.

[bboop]

Fast track her. What about compassion does this woman deserve? She chose to perpetrate a horrid evil; let her meet her Maker.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Here’s a solution I have advocated for years. As time goes on, I have found others who have conceived of this idea independently, too. For my money, the following is a nearly ideal solution to questions of death penalty, state powers and moral justice...

If a person is convicted of a capital crime, the sentence would be immediately passed by the family of the victim in the Roman fashion, thumbs up - or down.

If the family (or surviving relatives) do not wish to inflict the death penalty, the perp goes to the slammer for the rest of their natural life - no possible parole. In the joint, the prisoner would work 10 hours a day, six days a week in an occupation that would pay for their incarceration. They would receive three hots and a cot - no more - or less. There would be no TV's, weight-rooms, no phone calls, computer, jailhouse college educations and, of course, no hangin' with the homies. Medical care would be adequate, but no measures would be taken to stop or cure a natural disease ending in death.

If the family opts for the death penalty, then one of their number would be selected by themselves as their sole representative. At the appointed day - preferably in hours of the sentencing - the family’s representative would pull the switch, trip the lever or push the syringe plunger and the perp would die.

In this way the killer must face retribution from the hands of his victim's family and his life is in their hands. The victim is sure to be avenged, the family has an outlet for rage and revenge, the perp is powerless to prevent being punished with the same finality he/she inflicted, society is completely protected from another slimebag on the loose, genuine justice is upheld and served and, finally, social respect for the law is increased. The best part of it is that is shouldn’t cost the state much in either outcome and the state is denied the right to kill any of its citizenry no matter how loathsome they may be. I hope this idea becomes more widespread. To my thinking, it is an ideal solution - simple, effective and just.

Of course, with no percentage for taxing, spending or usurping power, this is most unpopular with government types I have discussed it with...

[phrogphlyer]

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.

Genesis 9:6

[bboop]

Dennis Prager explains — The (xx) Commandment says, in Hebrew, “Thou shalt not murder.” It is not ‘kill.’ The Lord hates evil and loves justice. Would He not be for protecting his murdered daughter and her child?